Al:
Oh, come on, Mike, Cheney was only there to make sure that David Ortiz's immigration papahs were all in ordah.

Doug:
OK you two moveon moonbats, as much as you hate Bush, you've got to give my guy props for his jokes. I mean that "I guess Manny's grandmother died again" line was comic gold.

Mike:
You mean his speechwritah's line.

Doug:
Look, it takes more than having the line, it's in the delivery. You can't pull that stuff off unless you're actually a baseball fan. I mean, c'mon, do I need to remind you of John Kerry and "Manny Ortez"?

Mike:
OK, OK touché. When George W. Bush isn't busy destroying the world, he does probably follow the game like a true fan. There, satisfied?

Doug:
OMG aren't we magnanimously bipartisan today. Must be the Obamassiah?

Al:
Hey, I'll confess that I'm feeling pretty cocky right now about next Novembah.

Doug:
Well, while you tax and spendahs are feeling so upbeat, can I get a kind word in memory of the fathah of the modern conservative movement, William F. Buckley?

Mike:
Think about it, some of the greatest political thinkahs of the past 50 yeahs have been Irish — Kennedy, O'Neil, Moynihan …

Al:
O'bama!

Author's Notes:

Today's title is a quote from WFB. And the "O'bama" in the final frame comes courtesy of John Derbyshire, a writer at the Buckley founded National Review. (Yes when I'm not reading sports blogs or Hollywood gossip blogs, I do try to keep up with the political blogs on both sides of the aisle.)

PS Bush cracking on Manny for not being
on the job is hysterical. This guy has
spent like 80% of his time in office pretending to be a cowboy on his play-ranch. When Bush puts up the national leadership equivalent of 10 years of 30hr 100rbi production, he can start quipping.

Are you sure that was Cheney? Earlier this month, I thought he saw his shadow and now we're dealing with extra weeks of winter.

Also, if the president could just go back on vacation to the Crawford Ranch until next January, that'd be great. I caught the first half of his news conference today and wanted to throw my TV all the way to DC.

it's strictly a Bush thing. Dems saw that he was a chuckling moron, or at least was happy to play one on TV, and that nothing good could come of his presidency.

Imagine if your boss were a moron. Now imagine if his boss were also a moron. You'd quit your job in frustration. Now imagine if _everyone's_ boss were a moron. You can't quit your country, so you can fume for four years, and then rage as four becomes eight on the strength of the war againt terra.

The man eschews logic in favor of some craptastic argumentation that supports his unconscionable grabs at our civic rights. He leverages human weaknesses to undermine our core tenets of liberty and dresses his actions up in the very fabric that he's shredding. On top of all of this, he does it using a puppet media group that kowtows to his message instead of calling him to the mat on it. When one of the Press Corps does get uppity, he simply squelches them and moves on as if there simply isn't a serious problem with his motives, tactics, or strategy.

He weakens all of us and shows no remorse or reconsideration of his actions. He is Sherman marching to the gulf and our liberties, economy, troops, and everything else are helpless in his path because few will actually stand up to his misconstrued reasoning and in many cases outright dishonesty in intention.

My anger is heightened further by the weak-willed Democratic leadership in Congress, the complicit popular media eating his pablum, and Republican party antics that have caused all of us to recoil at the thought of a late term impeachment. He has done so much wrong to the country that it has even desensitized us to when he further wrongs us, such that nothing short of burning babies in a pile on the Rose Garden would cause someone to act.

as much as it pains me, i think the hatred will grow if the GOP holds the white house. the dems seem to be holding onto a "we won't be happy until we get our way" attitude. partisan politics will be our downfall no matter who sits in the big chair.

I hate Bush as well, in both the rational and non-rational realms. I think a major problem for most Bush-haters is that're blind to the non-rational aspect of their hating.

Now, I happen to believe that Bush has established plenty of reasons to hate him on a rational front. To name a few: the scorched-earth partisan divisive handling of policy, the obvious oversimplification of Islam = Evil, the straight-up lying and spinning applied to intelligence to justify a war that had been planned by his cronies since the 90's. All of these are, I think, fairly despicable and easily identified on a rational basis. So they comprise my hate on his policy.

Yet, I hate his smugness and personal bearing rather a bit more (what riles up an angry Bush-hater more than the image of Bush cockily golfing in Moore's Farenheit 911?), and I know that most other Bush-haters are in the same boat. I just know that I also hate him - on a personal level - for reasons that I can't rationally justify.

What happens with most haters is that they fail to see this important difference, and it tends to make their criticism of Bush all out to be shrill and personal.

h.b., since you asked, as a social liberal/fiscal moderate/recovering Catholic, I have no problem with what anyone believes - believe it all you want (and twice on Sunday) but keep your belief system out of my government. Not to over simplify, but if you don't like abortion or gay marriage, don't have one...but don't try and legislate it. Over simplification of the highest order, I know, but you asked.

Oh, h.b., I have strong convictions...I love this country, but generally I keep my convictions to myself (generally).
But, to be brief, any one can be against abortion for whatever reason they want, it is their right, but we all know that most folks out picketing those clinics aren't there due to abortions' drain on the economy.

BTW the redesign is about 45% complete. I have 90% of the html/css done, but the next big chunk of work is integrating that within the TypePad format and making it mesh with everything we've done for the past 4 years.

One bit of bad news. I noticed in the stats that some 45% of you are using Internet Explorer Version 6 (IE6) as your browser.

Unfortunately, there are several aspects of the new design that IE6 just can't handle, so it's going to instead display a bit of a less attractive version.

I don't want to return to the days of "best viewed on Netscape 4!" but neither do I want to be held hostage by a browser that is 7 years old, especially when there are good, free alternatives like Firefox out there.

So if I'm against war because I'm a Quaker, then my anti-war stance counts for less than the person who is against war for a non faith-based reason?

I don't mean to belabor the point, I just think it's unfair, and indeed un American, if you will, to think that people should not bring their religious convictions into play when making decisions about how to live one's life and how to vote etc.

The Constitution says we shall not establish a national religion, it doesn't say we can't have religious convictions. Indeed, it says our religious convictions are protected.

Absolutely, h.b., I agree whole-heartedly with freedom of expression, and religion, and all of the other freedoms the Consitution guarantees, and you can live your life by those convictions, and try to convince/convert/persuade other to think that way, vote your way, even adopt your belief system ...just don't legislate it.

And to be fair, Kaz, the framers did try to design things so that a minority would not get crushed by the "mob-like mentality of the majority"

On the religious front, I think it's more an issue of how personal belief permeates what many interpret as Constitutionally mandated secular or religion-neutral determination of policy. Is religious affiliation determining policy? That is what becomes problematic. Personal conviction does not give politicians the right to restrict personal liberty or favor those that share beliefs with those in power.

Ironically, it's the protection of our rights to believe as we will that requires a restraint against faith-based policy.

I don't think it's necessarily for what's "best" for our country...it's about protecting liberty. That applies to the minority as well.

"I don't mean to belabor the point, I just think it's unfair, and indeed un American, if you will, to think that people should not bring their religious convictions into play when making decisions about how to live one's life and how to vote etc.

The Constitution says we shall not establish a national religion, it doesn't say we can't have religious convictions. Indeed, it says our religious convictions are protected."

I can't disagree with that so long as you're using your own beliefs as one of many factors into arriving at a decision.

But when I hear one's individual beliefs being used as the primary basis behind a decision, I cringe. Reminds me of a Republican state Senator in Oklahoma who voted against putting a state lottery up for a vote simply because of his own religous convictions.

//Reminds me of a Republican state Senator in Oklahoma who voted against putting a state lottery up for a vote simply because of his own religous convictions.//

(Oh God, I hate to get into this, but...)

Legislators, congressmen, senators; they all refuse to bring issues up for a vote due to a whole variety of reasons (most often, petty party partisanship). Why shouldn't religion be one of those reasons? It's just as valid as any other I've heard.

And, as H.B. mentioned, if you don't like it, vote the bugger out of office.

The thing is, I kind of consider this place to be a bit like my local bar. Fun banter about the Sox, trade rumors, why Tito does or doesn't suck. Maybe a little "Lost" thrown in for variety, and the occasional personal info that lets people know who you are.

You know, the kind of place where believe it or not, you can make friends (of both the onlne and offline variety).

The thing is that personal choices and policy choices aren't necessarily the same thing...the Constitution was written such that (ideally) the latter wouldn't become restrictive of the former. Just like baseball. We are talking about baseball, right?

I miss so much on here when I only check the comments every few hours!

I think that everyone is a little on edge right now about politics and it is invading in our normally friendly little corner(?) of the intertubes. It's just so hard to shy away from a political discussion with everyone and anyone these days. I even picked a fight with my mother yesterday via cross country phone call about the Obama turban photo.

In geekier news: I'm sure that you all looked at the photos from the White House photo op yesterday. Did anyone else feel like Papi looked like The Beast from the X-men movies. Huge guy, tiny glasses, slicked back hair, tailored yet still ill-fitting suit? Check, check, check, and check.

i think religious beliefs have their place in politics, but sometimes it's taken too far. opposing abortion because you believe all life is sacred is rational. wanting to place the ten commandments in public schools is merely forcing your beliefs on others.

and the fact that the republican party so shamelessly exploits the divide between those who are deeply religious and those who are not makes many people suspicious of religion in politics all together.

The GOP is actually not as monolithic as that with regard to religion.

For instance, John Derbyshire, the guy I mentioned in the notes who is a writer as NRO is an agnostic in every sense of the word. And Heather Mac Donald, another NRO writer, is an avowed atheist and is every bit as critical and suspicious of "the religious right" as anyone on the left.

Then there is Christopher Hitchens, who isn't technically part of the GOP (and isn't a US citizen for that matter) but who is sympathetic to the right with regard to Iraq and the Bush admin's foreign policy, is downright hostile to all forms of religion. (You may have heard of his book, "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything")

And the splits in the party between the evangelicals and the fiscal conservatives are well documented.